Hi-viz, does it make a difference in rider visibility?

[Matariki]

I've noticed that there are mixed opinions out there on this matter. Personally I have Hi-Viz gear, and I am more likely to notice motorcyclists who are wearing it when I'm going around town in the car.
Apparently there was a test study done on the matter back in 2004, it states in its conculsion that "Drivers wearing reflective or fluorescent clothing had a 37% lower risk of crash related injury than those who were not wearing such materials." http://www.bmj.com/highwire/filestre..._article_pdf/0

Do you think Hi-Viz makes much of a difference in rider visibility?
How many of you guys here wear Hi-Viz?

[mulletman]

If i were commuting to work i would wear Hi Viz,

[duckonin]

I've noticed that there are mixed opinions out there on this matter. Personally I have Hi-Viz gear, and I am more likely to notice motorcyclists who are wearing it when I'm going around town in the car.
Apparently there was a test study done on the matter back in 2004, it states in its conculsion that "Drivers wearing reflective or fluorescent clothing had a 37% lower risk of crash related injury than those who were not wearing such materials." http://www.bmj.com/highwire/filestre..._article_pdf/0

Do you think Hi-Viz makes much of a difference in rider visibility?
How many of you guys here wear Hi-Viz?

What makes a big difference around safely riding bike's is 'keeping your shit together in the top paddock'. Will help keep you safer than any clothing. Clothing may help keep your skin on in the event of 'not keeping your shit together' in the top paddock.

And yes, i do wear a jacket with Hi-vis in the panels. Yes also to seeing others faster when they are wearing same. And yes again to other road users most of them see you too.

[\m/]

My bike has fairings and lean forward riding position and a pack rack and bag on the back. They would struggle to see hi-vis even if they were looking.

[Subike]

Not going to join the New Zealand governments , "lets get everyone into orange and yellow uniforms"

""lets use the guise of personal safety, fine them for not wearing them at work, and train their children you cant survive without one""

Oh look the govt has the perfect departments for doing this too. ACC & OSH.

Whats next? they are already trying to control social structures in Christchurch by red zoning livable housing, closing working schools.

And they are trying to convince the last lot of free people in the public area to conform too? Motorcyclists?

Yup, lets join the orange and yellow brigade, become slaves to new age safety requirements , so we can exercise our freedom of choice,
(do we really have that anymore?)

[Matariki]

Not going to join the New Zealand governments , "lets get everyone into orange and yellow uniforms"

""lets use the guise of personal safety, fine them for not wearing them at work, and train their children you cant survive without one""

Oh look the govt has the perfect departments for doing this too. ACC & OSH.

Whats next? they are already trying to control social structures in Christchurch by red zoning livable housing, closing working schools.

And they are trying to convince the last lot of free people in the public area to conform too? Motorcyclists?

Yup, lets join the orange and yellow brigade, become slaves to new age safety requirements , so we can exercise our freedom of choice,
(do we really have that anymore?)

I don't see wearing Hi-Viz a violation of freedom of choice, for me its a preservation of my future freedom of choice. Frankly if me wearing Hi-Viz prevents at least one accident in my life time and doesn't force the rest of New Zealand's citizens to pick up the tab, then I'm fine with wearing it. If the studies are correct then there are good reasons to wear Hi-Viz. But no, like with motorcycle helmets (or any safety gear for that matter), people shouldn't be forced to wear them. But on the flip side, those that are stupid enough to not wear safety gear while riding and end up (due to their own error) smashed up, they should ideally be paying for their own medical bills instead of using our tax dollars.

[Ocean1]

I don't see wearing Hi-Viz a violation of freedom of choice, for me its a preservation of my future freedom of choice. Frankly if me wearing Hi-Viz prevents at least one accident in my life time and doesn't force the rest of New Zealand's citizens to pick up the tab, then I'm fine with wearing it. If the studies are correct then there are good reasons to wear Hi-Viz. But no, like with motorcycle helmets (or any safety gear for that matter), people shouldn't be forced to wear them. But on the flip side, those that are stupid enough to not wear safety gear while riding and end up (due to their own error) smashed up, they should ideally be paying for their own medical bills instead of using our tax dollars.

And if those studies are largely made up to fit an existing prejudice in favour of dayglo skivies then who's responsible for the injuries and deaths that might have been avoided if a better safety scheme were persued?

Like, if, for example we're forced to wear pink in spite of the fact that in urban environments the most likely colour to be seen is... Black.

[davereid]

...those that are stupid enough to not wear safety gear while riding and end up (due to their own error) smashed up, they should ideally be paying for their own medical bills instead of using our tax dollars....

You are arguing that only those that follow "best practice" should be covered by ACC.

Maybe you should consider that you are applying your best practice rule to motorcycling, as a subset of motoring.

A simple removal of the protection your subset gives you, would make a nice new rule.

those that are stupid enough to drive a vehicle without crumple zones and airbags and end up (due to their own error) smashed up, they should ideally be paying for their own medical bills instead of using our tax dollars.... ?


Because it seems to me, motorcycling is inherently unsafe. No amount of Hi-Viz, helmets, ATGATT or rider traning will make my Harley as safe as the wifes Toyota.

[Matariki]

And if those studies are largely made up to fit an existing prejudice in favour of dayglo skivies then who's responsible for the injuries and deaths that might have been avoided if a better safety scheme were persued?

Like, if, for example we're forced to wear pink in spite of the fact that in urban environments the most likely colour to be seen is... Black.

I meant as in; if the rider was the primary cause of the accident. If the driver is at the fault (who hit the rider) then I have no problem with pick up the tab through tax. I'm not in favor in forcing people through legal matters to wear safety gear, that should be entirely individual choice and preference. However I'm not shy to say that it does make my skin crawl when I see riders out there wearing nothing but their casual clothing. Sometimes when I do spot them, the color choice of clothing that they're wearing, I find blends in with the color of the road and environment. I can't speak for everyone, but I know I am far more likely to spot someone in Hi-Viz (or colors that contrast with their environment) than I am with spotting someone wearing flat colors.

[Maha]

There is nothing new to add this 'done to death' thread topic...never the twain shall meet on the subject, as per fucking usual.

[Marius Elvenwood]

Not going to join the New Zealand governments , "lets get everyone into orange and yellow uniforms"

""lets use the guise of personal safety, fine them for not wearing them at work, and train their children you cant survive without one""

Oh look the govt has the perfect departments for doing this too. ACC & OSH.

Whats next? they are already trying to control social structures in Christchurch by red zoning livable housing, closing working schools.

And they are trying to convince the last lot of free people in the public area to conform too? Motorcyclists?

Yup, lets join the orange and yellow brigade, become slaves to new age safety requirements , so we can exercise our freedom of choice,
(do we really have that anymore?)

Brigade is a bit far fetched. Slaves definitely so.
I look at hi-vis gear in the same way as I see seatbelts. Sure it's a pain, and yes if you wear it then you are simply following the latest safety fashion. But so what?
There are people who believe that seatbelts kill more people than they save, and anyone who's driven a car can tell you just how uncomfortable they are, but statistically they are GOING TO SAVE YOUR LIFE.
One bright yellow, $10 vest isn't so much to ask. In any situation, dangerous or not, it's going to light you up like a furby on a bad hair day. You don't need statistics or percentages, government laws or your friends opinions to notice that wearing hi-vis gear is all gain, no loss.
So if the government wants to make high visibility gear compulsory, you won't see me complaining. Better to spend that ten bucks now than two thousand later on brain surgery.

[Marius Elvenwood]

There is nothing new to add this 'done to death' thread topic...never the twain shall meet on the subject, as per fucking usual.

Sorry Maha, i'm too young with opinions bursting out of every orifice, can't help myself.

[Matariki]

You are arguing that only those that follow "best practice" should be covered by ACC.

Maybe you should consider that you are applying your best practice rule to motorcycling, as a subset of motoring.

A simple removal of the protection your subset gives you, would make a nice new rule.

those that are stupid enough to drive a vehicle without crumple zones and airbags and end up (due to their own error) smashed up, they should ideally be paying for their own medical bills instead of using our tax dollars.... ?


Because it seems to me, motorcycling is inherently unsafe. No amount of Hi-Viz, helmets, ATGATT or rider traning will make my Harley as safe as the wifes Toyota.

I'm arguing that it would cost less money in the long run if people geared up. Motorcycling is unsafe, but there are precautions that people can take to reduce injuries, deaths and costs. If a safety measure is proven to work, then it should be encouraged. As with ACC, the concerns is I have with it is that its an easy system to become dependent on, which could diminish the importance of individual responsibility when it comes to safety. I know it might sound stupid, but when someone has to pay a high price for something, it tends to make that individual think twice about their actions. I'm sure the intentions of ACC are good, but I fear that its set itself up to be cheated by those who don't really need it (such as those who turn up at the emergency room for a check up rather than paying to see a GP). In other situations regarding road safety, Its cheaper to wear a helmet or a seat belt than it is to go to the emergency room and if necessary, undergo surgery. If Hi-Viz can increase rider safety by avoiding a potential accident, then its worth my $20 to buy and wear a Hi-Viz vest that I can wear time and time again than it is to spend thousands on surgery and dealing with potential life long aliments that could require further treatment.

As for motorcycles as a vehicle being safe, in a motor accident its not the motorcycle that's covered by ACC or is 'hurt', but the person who is riding it.

[James Deuce]

Two points.

I'll bet that study was paid for by 3M.

The type of riders who choose to wear high visibility clothing (note the lack of infantile abbreviation) are 37% less likely to have accidents is a more correct assessment of the results.

You can argue all you like about reducing injury through gear. As far as I know, sheep are both colour blind and stupid, and old people can be both but also have the enormous burden of being human and running a restricted version of a human brain. Both have proved far more dangerous to me than any other "demographic".

I've thought about the price I've paid intently over the course of 30 years and have come to the conclusion that motorcycle gear is largely pointless and doesn't do what it says it does on the box. It simply plays to the fears of the purchaser and his/her associates and the prevailing peer pressure in regard to acceptable motorcycling attire. In other words, it's just fashion. As much as you want to think that people will see your fluorescent abombination, they won't. The average driver spends no more than a 1/10th of second checking in either direction when exiting an intersection, and the brain looks at the evidence and says, "go dummy", and then paints in details and colours once you've made your decision to move.

Any form of compulsion is bad. Any form of peer pressure to conform to "commonly accepted practice" should be fought with every breath including your dying one.

[bogan]

I meant as in; if the rider was the primary cause of the accident. If the driver is at the fault (who hit the rider) then I have no problem with pick up the tab through tax. I'm not in favor in forcing people through legal matters to wear safety gear, that should be entirely individual choice and preference. However I'm not shy to say that it does make my skin crawl when I see riders out there wearing nothing but their casual clothing. Sometimes when I do spot them, the color choice of clothing that they're wearing, I find blends in with the color of the road and environment. I can't speak for everyone, but I know I am far more likely to spot someone in Hi-Viz (or colors that contrast with their environment) than I am with spotting someone wearing flat colors.

Clothing is easy to spot and judge a person by, but lets be honest, it isn't the main factor. Try watching peoples riding style instead, that what gets you into an accident. And watching other peoples style is a good way to improve your own. However if you just want to make empty 'feel good' judgments putting down other riders, then high vis is for you!

The study is skewed as it does not normalise for rider type, bike type, or route. All it establishes is those who voluntarily (and without reading studies) wear high vis have less accidents; do you see the difference? The study makes no attempt to establish that the wearing of high vis is the cause for less accidents. Personally I believe those who choose to wear high-vis are safety conscious, and have less accidents because they ride in a safe manner.

We must remember high vis is not a substitute for checking other road users have seen you, otherwise high vis will be associated with an increased accident risk due to rider style.